Panajev2001a
Veteran
Also, Fafalada: there is a reason PSOne was not fully software emualted ( 99% required emulation accuracy or more ) and this might be behind non completely software based PlayStation 2 backward-compatibility.
Few questions about PS2/PS3 backward compability.
- Thread starter clem64
- Start date
Fafalada said:
AFAIK both MDEC and GTE are there, just unuseble in PS2 mode. The GTE is definately there but we can't use it (we wanted to use it for some sounds positioning calcs but its strictly banned, Sony were very strict, even looking at it the wrong way and instant submission failure
). I believe it doesn't work with IOP's cache or increased frequency properly (PS1 CPU doesn't have a cache). I'd guess the PS1 emulation probably switches the IOP into more perfect emulation mode, so the GTE can be used.Fafalada said:On that note, everyone is talking about PSP compatibility as well - since when did this become a fact, I must have missed the news?
It's not. But conjecture is a way of life with life with these threads.
Panajev2001a said:
Certainly, but it's not like most developers are severely taxing DVD either. <smirks> Plus, unless the others are adopting it as well, many devs may not want to stretch out with extra work that they can't reasonably port over.
Panajev2001a said:
Certainly no contest here. But many things get "big pushes" at VERY high levels. HDTV, plasma TV's... They're being pushed harder and are more in people's eyeline than before, but they also cannot command a low price point, whereas the PS3 doesn't have much sway in that regard.
Panajev2001a said:
True, but how much? <shrugs>
Panajev2001a said:
It would also mean cheaper media for devs/publishers to be using for the games which makes it more attractive, but likely will still be a LOT more expensive than DVDs, so unless they prohibit DVD playing on the PS3 (which would be moronic) or force games to use Blu-Ray, it may take a long time for developers to adopt it anyway. (They'd still get the benefit of being a BR player, but it may take years still for a decent number of publishers to embrace it for games.)
Panajev2001a said:
Of course. Nothing is impossible. Question is, what ARE the sum-total of costs for them (not just materials cost) and will the benefits outweigh them with that timing?
Panajev2001a said:
SACD also didn't launch anywhere NEAR that high, and the ones that WERE high were there because they were bundled with high-end equipment in many other directions. Blu-Ray recorders are coming out NOW between $3-4000 and are just that--Blu-Ray recorders. (I know they can play all DVD and CD formats [except, amusingly, SACD
) as well, but I don't necessarily think they write any formats other than Blu-Ray.) They're also coming out bigger and much heavier than any DVD equipment did at launch, so I'm not sure what's going on back there, but there could well be a lot of hardware complication associated with them.Panajev2001a said:
But for the PS3 it's not a question of desire, but of logistics. Pushing mainstream Blu-Ray players (just players, not recorders) could ALSO be done by the companies with $300-400 dedicated devices, though the popularity of those is dependant on there actually being OTHER media using the standard as well. Can't quite launch them just to play what they've recorded on $3-4000 recorders...
Media costs and HDTV-adoption rates will play much into that as well.I certainly know they desire and benefits they'd get from including it in the PS3, but from a logistical standpoint it's a lot to complicate, considering what they're attempting to push otherwise. What would be the hardware costs they'd be absorbing in the next few years to get it in at launch, and what would they lose by not having a set-top machine dedicated just to BR playing and actually bringing in profit from the hardware sales? How complex is a BR player in general, and can they fit it in a box tenuously balancing what is bound to be a very exacting design and high heat requirements? How rugged and dependable are they in comparison to CD/DVD now, and can they be included without issues? (Not that Sony's launched a PS optical drive without issues yet.
)Sadly there are just too many unknown variables to state anything for sure--especially considering the number of options they could explore.
DeanoC said:Fafalada said:
AFAIK both MDEC and GTE are there, just unuseble in PS2 mode. The GTE is definately there but we can't use it (we wanted to use it for some sounds positioning calcs but its strictly banned, Sony were very strict, even looking at it the wrong way and instant submission failure
That's a damned shame. *sigh* I'd've thought considering PS2's multiprocessor design philosophy they'd want to get that working for developers.
Just a little side question: Does anyone know if the PSones mdec decoder was ever used for decompression of textures? It was tooted as a feature just as the mpeg2 decoder on PS2 is.
It just seems strange to m, that it is never mentioned anywhere, as it could potentially make texture memory up to 30 times larger.
It just seems strange to m, that it is never mentioned anywhere, as it could potentially make texture memory up to 30 times larger.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Short answer.
Nothing as they will also have that machine: the secret is attacking from multiple sides.
Just like the did with DVD on PlayStation 2: a lot of people did not expect SCE to include DVD and DVD movies playback in PlayStation 2.
SACD launched at more than what Blu-Ray launched at IIRC.
It launched at $5,000+:
http://www.twice.com/index.asp?layout=story_stocks&display=Archives&articleid=CA39658
Blu-Ray launched at $3,800+ in Japan.
Nothing as they will also have that machine: the secret is attacking from multiple sides.
Just like the did with DVD on PlayStation 2: a lot of people did not expect SCE to include DVD and DVD movies playback in PlayStation 2.
SACD launched at more than what Blu-Ray launched at IIRC.
It launched at $5,000+:
http://www.twice.com/index.asp?layout=story_stocks&display=Archives&articleid=CA39658
Blu-Ray launched at $3,800+ in Japan.
What's the point of having an EE for backwards compatibility. So some of it can be done in hardware, that's great. What about the GPU? Will that be hardware driven too through the use of the PS3 rasterizer? I'm sure the PS3 will have a harddrive, so it is possible that an emulation system could be stored on that. It would also allow Sony to beef up the PS2 visuals in a similar fashion to what emulators on PC's do. Up the resolution of the game, apply anisotropic filtering, and put in some FSAA and PS2 games will look awesome on PS3.
I understand why some people would like the EE to remain in the PS3. It's a very competent machine and would be great for I/O, but it is a tad bit overkill. Software emulation is the way to go, and even if it does cost a pretty penny if it makes PS2 games better looking then it's all good. Maybe a hybrid emulator that uses some hardware for emulation and the rest software.
There is a definite need for 99% accuracy, but I'm sure that if Sony started some time ago or even now they would be able to get it down.
I understand why some people would like the EE to remain in the PS3. It's a very competent machine and would be great for I/O, but it is a tad bit overkill. Software emulation is the way to go, and even if it does cost a pretty penny if it makes PS2 games better looking then it's all good. Maybe a hybrid emulator that uses some hardware for emulation and the rest software.
There is a definite need for 99% accuracy, but I'm sure that if Sony started some time ago or even now they would be able to get it down.
PSX is for now easily of being emulated by PS3 because Cell architecture and the treatment of the data (APULET).
PS2 is another thing, I believe that PS3 could emulate it (from a economic point of view is better) but is worse from the users point of view because the emulators never do their job at 100% (See MSX Emulators).
PS2 is another thing, I believe that PS3 could emulate it (from a economic point of view is better) but is worse from the users point of view because the emulators never do their job at 100% (See MSX Emulators).
Right you are my gaming friend. I've just been in rant mode all day due to very personal things.
Sony should give us an emulator that does more than just an exact copy. It would be nice to run games in progressive scan with a much higher degree of texture filtering and some AA. I'm sure a lot of gamers would appreciate that.
Sony should give us an emulator that does more than just an exact copy. It would be nice to run games in progressive scan with a much higher degree of texture filtering and some AA. I'm sure a lot of gamers would appreciate that.
well, i think the point is to make and sell software. if it isn't for ps3 , it's for ps2 .
more software , more profit.
more reason to buy the console over another console if for example you have a large stock of games at home, you can still use it on your ps3.
even now they are still selling a good amount of ps1 games. I don't think those buyers are all ps1 owners.
more software , more profit.
more reason to buy the console over another console if for example you have a large stock of games at home, you can still use it on your ps3.
even now they are still selling a good amount of ps1 games. I don't think those buyers are all ps1 owners.
Sonic said:
Yup! And it'd be better if they had an EE in there. Emulating that would be VERY taxing. I actually doubt PS3 could emulate all of PS2 in pure software. SOMETHING would have to be offloaded.
Anyway, PS2 does actually have two enhancements for PS1 games... but they don't always work, only one is cosmetic, isn't even noticeable a lot of the time, and can really ruin the frame rate in some games.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Tag, the worst thing I have seen Texture Smoothing do is to screw up with transparencies and in most games has a HUGE effect: Tomb Raider games, MGS, Spier-man games, Silent Hill, etc...
One of the things I like the most is that it reduces Texture Aliasing: nice and good Bi-linear filtering
One of the things I like the most is that it reduces Texture Aliasing: nice and good Bi-linear filtering
Panajev2001a said:Tag, the worst thing I have seen Texture Smoothing do is to screw up with transparencies and in most games has a HUGE effect: Tomb Raider games, MGS, Spier-man games, Silent Hill, etc...
One of the things I like the most is that it reduces Texture Aliasing: nice and good Bi-linear filtering
Heh, it doesn't seem to be normal bilinear though...
Anyway, try using it in Xenogears.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Tagrineth said:Panajev2001a said:Tag, the worst thing I have seen Texture Smoothing do is to screw up with transparencies and in most games has a HUGE effect: Tomb Raider games, MGS, Spier-man games, Silent Hill, etc...
One of the things I like the most is that it reduces Texture Aliasing: nice and good Bi-linear filtering
Heh, it doesn't seem to be normal bilinear though...
Anyway, try using it in Xenogears.
Hey, you wish me ill ? If you want me to play that game you are wishing me to suffer
That is not lady-like
Tagrineth said:Panajev2001a said:Tag, the worst thing I have seen Texture Smoothing do is to screw up with transparencies and in most games has a HUGE effect: Tomb Raider games, MGS, Spier-man games, Silent Hill, etc...
One of the things I like the most is that it reduces Texture Aliasing: nice and good Bi-linear filtering
Heh, it doesn't seem to be normal bilinear though...
Anyway, try using it in Xenogears.
I agree, it makes the textures in FF7 look very muddy. Now I know they aren't the best and all, but on my PC running a PS1 emulator, it looks much better.
FF VII has never looked better on PC with 4x SS FSAA and 8x Anisotropic filtering
The SS FSAA actually looks pretty great (don't know if MSAA would work, my GF2 doesn't support it), but I have no clue if the Aniso actually does anything heh, seeing as there are maybe 3-4 different textures per battle The framerate is actually locked it seems to the number of keyframe animations, so it's not like the frame rate suffers
The SS FSAA actually looks pretty great (don't know if MSAA would work, my GF2 doesn't support it), but I have no clue if the Aniso actually does anything heh, seeing as there are maybe 3-4 different textures per battle
The framerate is actually locked it seems to the number of keyframe animations, so it's not like the frame rate suffers Sonic said:
i had the idea that resolution was tied into the software. how could PS3 start running games in hi-res if they were programmed to run at 640x240 (like ICO and GT3 and all field-rendered games really).
Also, some PAL versions of the games will NOT run in progressive scan, at least not properly, even though the game is not field rendered...
I have already tested *forcing* Pro-scan and therefore 60Hz with PAL games (with the Blaze VGA adapter) and some games crash when trying to run some prerendered cut-scenes (like SH3), some games have Synch problems during the cut-scenes (games like FFX and Kingdom Hearts, because they usually run at 50Hz but when forced to run at 60Hz, they're out of Synch, which curiously enough doesn't happen with some other pre-rendered cut-scenes like the ones in ZOE2)...
*Forcing* things with PS2 software is going to be rather troublesome in PS3 emulation, so i'm not raising my hopes too high. I think the problem stems from the fact that each game can have a different screen output setting, and i have experienced quite a lot of different settings using the Blaze VGA Adapter...
But of course, as usual, FAF and "those guys" can correct me if i said anything wrong..
Similar threads
